defendants. deadline · 2014, new line released annabelle. annahelle is the prequel to the...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

GERALD BRITTLE,Plaintiff,

V. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00908-JAG

WARNER BROS.

ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al..Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case centers on the adventures of Ed and Lorraine Warren, paranormal investigators.

In 1980, Gerald Brittle pubHshed a book about the Warrens, The Demonologist. In 2013, 2014,

and 2016, The Conjuring, Annabelle, and The Conjuring 2, respectively, premiered in movie

theaters. Brittle has sued the writers, directors, producers, and distributors of these movies for

copyright infringement, among other related claims.

The defendants have filed three motions. Seven of the nine defendants have moved to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. All of the defendants have moved to stay the case

pending arbitration and have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court heard

arguments on these motions on August 22, 2017,

For the reasons stated from the bench at the hearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, (Dk. No. 49), and DISMISSES the following defendants

from the case: Ratpac-Dune EntertainmentLLC; James Wan; Atomic Monster Inc.; Chad Hayes;

Carey Hayes; David Leslie Johnson; and Gary Dauberman. The Court DENIES Brittle's request

to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

The Court DENIES the motion to stay pending arbitration. (Dk. No. 46.) The decision

on such a motion rests within the Court's discretion. Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized

Case 3:16-cv-00908-JAG Document 66 Filed 08/28/17 of 7 PageID# 3698

Deadlin

e

Thermal Imaging, Inc., 96 F.3d 88, 97 (4th Cir. 1996). Motions to stay pending arbitration

typically arise in cases that involve both arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims. See 9 U.S.C. § 3;

Am. Recovery Corp., 96 F.3d at 96-97. As the defendants conceded at the hearing, none of the

claims in this case are subject to arbitration. Accordingly, the Court will not stay this case.

Finally, as to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (Dk. No. 44), for the

reasons stated from the bench at the August 22, 2017 hearing, together with the reasons stated

below in this Memorandum Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART this

motion. Specifically, the Court GRANTS the motion as to the state law claims for trespass to

chattel and conversion, as the Copyright Act preempts these claims. The Court also GRANTS

the motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claim. Otherwise, the Court DENIES the motion to

dismiss. The Court also DENIES Brittle's request for leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1978, Brittle and the Warrens signed a publishing deal with Prentice-Hall, Inc., for a

book tentatively titled The Demonologist. Separately, Brittle and the Warrens entered into an

agreement that set forth their understanding of their respective rights in the to-be-published book

(the "Collaboration Agreement"). The Collaboration Agreement included a provision that

required the unanimous consent of Brittle and the Warrens before entering into contracts

regarding rights in the book. {See 2d Am. Compl. Ex. 2, | 8.)

In 1980, Prentice-Hall published The Demonologist. The book told the "true story" of the

Warrens. Prentice-Hall registered the copyright. The Certificate of Recordation lists Brittle as

the author of The Demonologist, and Brittle and the Warrens as the copyright claimants, with

ownership established by written agreement. (2d Am. Compl. Ex. 12.)


Deadlin

e

1 1

New Line has released three movies that involve the "true stories" of the Warrens. In

July 2013, New Line released The Conjuring. The Conjuring tells the story of the Warrens as

they assist the Perron family with an exorcism at their farmhouse in Rhode Island. In October

2014, New Line released Annabelle. Annahelle is the prequel to The Conjuring, and follows a

creepy doll named Annabelle that appeared in the opening scenes of The Conjuring. In June

2016, New Line released The Conjuring 2. The Conjuring 2 follows the Warrens to England to

help the Hodgson family in Enfield, England. Brittle has alleged that each of these movies copy

parts of The Demonologist.

II. DISCUSSION

Brittle has alleged nine counts against the defendants: (1) copyright infringement for The

Conjuring; (2) copyright infringement for Annabelle; (3) copyright infringement for The

Conjuring 2; (4) trespass to chattels; (5) statutory business conspiracy; (6) conversion;

(7) tortious interference with contract; (8) injunction; and (9) violation of the Lanham Act.^

The defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court will briefly

repeat the familiar standard for such a motion, as many of the defendants' arguments have

attempted to go beyond its bounds. In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a

court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences

^ The Court refers to Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ("Warner Bros.") and New LineProduction, Inc. ("New Line"), collectively as "New Line" to track the use by the parties.Warner Bros, is New Line's parent company.^New Line released Annabelle: Creation {''Annabelle 2") inAugust 2017. The Court dismissesany claims related to this movie. See infra note 3.^ In his complaint. Brittle also mentions three friture movies: Annabelle 2, The Nun, and TheConjuring 3. Brittle seems to seek an injunction to prevent the defendants from proceeding withthese movies. As the Court noted, Annabelle 2 premiered in theaters after the filing of thecomplaint, but before the August 22, 2017 hearing. At the hearing, the Court questioned whetherclaims based on these movies were ripe for adjudication. Brittle withdrew any claims based onthose movies. Accordingly, to the extent Brittle has raised claims based on these three movies,the Court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss.


Deadlin

e

in favor of the plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253

(4th Cir. 2009) (citing Edwards v. City ofGoldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)). The

principle that a court must accept all allegations as true, however, does not apply to legal

conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss, a complaint must state facts that, when accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face. Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 565 (2007)). In

reviewing motions where the defendants raise an affirmative defense for their alleged

misconduct, courts may rule on the affirmative defense at the motion to dismiss stage only where

the necessary facts appear on the face of the complaint. Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458,

464 (4th Cir. 2007).

A. Copyright Claims

To establish a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove that he possesses a

valid copyright and that the defendants copied original and protectable elements of the

copyrighted work. Copeland v. Bieber, 789 F.3d 484, 488 (4th Cir. 2015). Taking all factual

allegations and reasonable inferences in Brittle's favor, the Court finds that Brittle has stated

plausible claims of copyright infringement. Brittle has a valid copyright in The Demonologist,

and the movies (i.e., The Conjuring, Annabelle, and The Conjuring 2) plausibly copy some

original elements from the book. The Court declines the parties' invitation to wade into the truth

or falsity of the Warrens' paranormal escapades or to parse the resulting similarities between the

works at this stage of the case. This type of analysis, which bears on evidence presented and

factual determinations, is better suited for summary judgment or trial. See, e.g.. Feist Publ'ns,


Deadlin

e

Inc. V. Rural Tel Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (summary judgment); Universal Furniture Int'l,

Inc. V. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2010) (bench trial). Accordingly,

the Court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims for failure

to state a claim."^

B. State Law Claims

Brittle's state law claims fall within two categories: (1) property-based claims (i.e.,

trespass to chattels and conversion) and (2) contract-based claims (i.e., tortious interference with

contract and statutory business conspiracy).

Looking first at the property-based claims, the Copyright Act provides for preemption of

certain state law claims. See 17 U.S.C. § 301. The Copyright Act preempts a state law claim if

the claim falls within the subject-matter of copyright, and if the claim seeks to protect rights

equivalent to any exclusive rights within the scope of a federal copyright. Tire Eng'g &

Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292, 309 (4th Cir. 2012). A right

under state law is not equivalent to a right under federal copyright law if the state law claim

requires "an 'extra element' that changes the nature of the state law action so that it is

'qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim.'" U.S. ex rel. Berge v. Bd. of

Trustees ofthe Univ. ofAlabama, 104 F.3d 1453, 1463 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Rosciszewski v.

Arete Assocs., Inc., 1 F.3d 225, 229-30 (4th Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original). In this case, the

two property-based claims are not qualitatively different from the copyright infringement claims.

See Berge, 104 F.3d at 1463. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss these claims

as preempted.

^ The Court also denies the motion to the extent it raises a statute of limitations defense to thecopyright infringement claim based on The Conjuring because the necessary facts do not clearlyappear on the face of the complaint. The defendants may, of course, raise this defense at anothertime.


Deadlin

e

Turning to the contract-basedclaims, the defendants argue that the appropriate statutes of

limitations bar these claims. The parties dive into choice-of-law analysis in making their

arguments. The Court will not grant the motion to dismiss based on the defendants' statute of

limitations affirmative defense because the necessary facts do not clearly appear on the face of

the complaint. Namely, the choice-of-law question requires factual development,^ as does the

question of when the claim accrued. Thus, the Court denies the motion to dismiss the contract-

based claims.

C. Lanham Act Claim

The Lanham Act prohibits false advertising. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). To state a claim for

false advertising under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff must assert, among other elements, that he

"has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the misrepresentation, either by direct diversion

of sales or by a lessening of goodwill associated with its products." Design Res., Inc. v. Leather

Indus, ofAm., 789 F.3d 495, 501 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). In this case, Brittle asserts

that New Line violated the Lanham Act when it represented that the movies were based on true

stories.^ Assuming the falsity of these representations, the Court does not understand how these

misrepresentations injured Brittle, an author who made the same representations when he

published his book. Because Brittle has failed to assert any injury resulting from the allegedly

false advertising, the Court will dismiss the Lanham Act claim.

^For this reason, the Court will also not dismiss the business conspiracy claim based on NewLine's argument that California law does not recognize such a claim.^ In the second amended complaint. Brittle also seems to assert that New Line violated theLanham Act when it failed to give him any credit in the movies for his copyright. Brittle did notargue this theory at the hearing when he summarized his Lanham Act claim. To the extentBrittle has asserted such a claim, the Court dismisses it. Cf. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth CenturyFox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 37 (2003).


Deadlin

e

III. CONCLUSION

In summary, the Court:

1) GRANTS the motion to dismiss for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction, (Dk. No. 49);

2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim, (Dk. No. 44); and

3) DENIES the motion to stay pending arbitration, (Dk. No. 46).

In other words, this case will move forward as to the copyright claims, the business conspiracy

claim, and the tortious interference with contract claim against New Line and Warner Bros.

It is so ORDERED.

Let the Clerk send a copy of this Memorandum Order to all counsel of record.

Date:

Richmond, V

JohnA.Gibney, Jr.United States Distrij


Deadlin

e

defendants. deadline · 2014, new line released annabelle. annahelle is the prequel to the...

Documents